ESPN made headlines this week after making a controversial statement about New York Knicks point guard Jeremy Lin. Lin has taken the world by storm by his play over the past two weeks, leading the Knicks to seven victories in his eight games. Most intriguing to basketball outsiders and the media is Lin's Taiwanese heritage, despite the fact that Lin is American-born and educated. This fact didn't a number of ESPN employees from having fun with a well-known racial slur after Lin's loss to the Hornets. On ESPN Mobile, ESPN's Sportscenter and ESPN Radio, it was noted that the Knicks might have a "chink in the armor". The phrase obviously contains two connotations, neither of which are positive for Lin.
The headline writer has been fired, the ESPN anchor has been suspended but ESPN Radio remains unpunished. Why? The offender in this scenario was not an ESPN employee. How does a network properly punish an individual who is not an employee of their network? Regulating the opinions and language of guests has long been a controversial issue. How should ESPN be punished? By FCC guidelines, there was technically nothing inherently wrong with the comments.
Sports talk radio has long been the target of criticism for potentially racist comments. In 2007, Don Imus was fired from his CBS radio show after referring to the Rutger's women's basketball team as a bunch of "nappy headed hoes". The firing was a financial loss for CBS, after MSNBC pulled its simulcast of the program and many advertisers dropped their support of CBS previous to the firing. Imus later claimed he would like the opportunity to apologize to the team in person, face-to-face.
Sports talk radio allows for a bit of room for unpopular opinions that may not be politically correct. These actions are irresponsible because of the sphere of influence that many radio hosts have. On any given day, there may be hundreds of thousands of listeners that can hear these opinions. Even if the holder of the opinion considers his or her comments satirical, one or more listeners might not be able to recognize that fact and take the comments as true.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2003/writers/peter_king/09/30/mcnabb_limbaugh/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/12/national/main2675273.shtml
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2012/02/espn-fires-lin-appropriate-employee-suspends-anchor-jeremy-lin-new-york-knicks-espn-radio-espnews/1#.T0Jcu3JWpVQ
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with Chris here. Many sports talk radio hosts that I personally listen to (Felger & Mazz, Dennis & Callahan from WEEI) are well-known for their often pompous and outrageous opinions and theories. While this is indeed part of their shtick, and what keeps (some)listeners interested, it sometimes gets out of hand. I consider Michael Felger to be the Skip Bayless of radio. He is the guy that will go against the grain 100% of the time. He seems to get great joy and amusement out of being anti-mainstream. Even if his opinion is completely invalid, he will defend it until he's blue in the face, many times at the expense of others. While (to my knowledge) Felger has not yet had any extreme slip-ups pertaining to race and/or religion, I can definitely see it in his future. His style is similar to that of other "shock-jocks" and I think radio hosts like him need to reel themselves in a bit. Like Chris said in this blog, they need to consider the wide audiences they are reaching. A highly-opinionated radio host is great, but one that cannot keep his emotions in check and think before he/she speaks is dangerous and can prove to be detrimental to their show their network as a whole.
ReplyDeleteChris brings up a good point that it is difficult to police sports radio and discipline callers who are not direct employees. It is kind of the wild west in that way. Callers can tell the screener they are going to talk about one thing and go a completely opposite direction once they are on air. When you take into account that in cases such as Imus the hosts can utter offensive remarks, it becomes evident the great potential for sports radio to become obscene.
DeleteI ultimately think that sports radio avoids many of these pitfalls for how vulnerable it is to them and provides a valuable service to sports fans. Average fans are given a voice to shape the social agenda and they get nonstop coverage of only the teams they truly care about. I personally don't listen to much sports radio because I can't stand the whining, but I could see it being very much appreciated by someone who isn't bent on political correctness.
I completely agree with Chris that some of these sports talk radio hosts are irresponsible in some of the comments they make. A large part of this is because these "shock jock" hosts will go out of their way to make outrageous and controversial comments in order to put their name out there and attract more listeners. Our society loves controversy, and in order for these shows to stay popular and get higher ratings, these hosts will say outlandish things to get people to listen. Unfortunately, it is difficult to monitor these things, but if hosts just stick to the action and issues on the field instead of creating it themselves, fans will still listen for that alone.
ReplyDeleteChris hit the nail on the head with his point. The radio stations usually avoid potential lawsuits because more often than not, it's the fans making the 'slur' comments, not the broadcaster. Sure, the broadcaster does a great job of egging on the fan to say something stupid because, like John said, our society loves controversial comments. However, they ultimately aren't the ones saying them. There are the rare cases, like the Imus case, and the station took immediate action. But policing what listener says is impossible, and the station can't be at fault for it.
ReplyDeleteSports talk radio is only as popular as the host. In this case, I agree with Chris that some talk radio hosts irresponsibly attack and degrade certain teams, players, management, and sometimes callers. While there is no place for racial slurs, without hard-nosed controversial statements the sports talk radio medium would die. It is the job of the host to take on the role of your know-it-all friend who has had a little too much to drink. In today's society sports talk amongst friends is usually laid back and had over a few cold ones.
ReplyDeleteThe sports radio hosts are appealing to their market and no blame can be put on the business goal of the host, which is to attract listeners. American society today especially in television has stooped down to shows such as "The Jersey Shore," and other reality TV shows. These shows only exist because of viewership and listeners.
The only problem here is that producers and radio hosts are finally catering to their audiences. There is no shame in that. However, the way they go about it most of the time needs to be approached another way. But hey then it wouldn't be good talk radio.
I also agree that sports talk radio is given more flexibility with what they can and cannot say. As Chris mentioned the radio hosts often do instigate the callers to say the majority of outrageous comments, radio hosts are given much more flexibility with they can and cannot say on air.
ReplyDeleteOur society loves controversy and talk radio full’s the public’s fire by instigating controversial topics. However I think that the radio industry has almost taken it a bit too far. Sometimes when I listen to the people calling in they almost seem so outrageous that I can’t listen to them.
I agree with Chris as well but that comes with listening to the radio. No one wants to listen to a sports show and listen to two guys ramble on and fully agree with each other over things. The best radio is when it gets controversial because let's face it, our society thrives off controversy. The Don Imus thing was really bad and completely racist. The writers at ESPN may have been having fun with the whole Lin situation but it is a common, harmless saying. It ultimately shouldn't have been said but the firing was justified. I'm a fan of WEEI and the thing that keeps me listening besides the getting news about my teams is listening to the arguments and suggestions the callers give. It can get out of hand at times but it has me listening. It also makes me feel better tuning in after a big loss and listening to everyone complain so I know I'm not the only one feeling it. Arrogant and pompous hosts make a show. Think about all the most popular shows and most of those hosts are controversial. People love hearing that. They are just smart enough to keep themselves out of trouble.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Chris. Sports Talk on radio has many things said that would not be heard on television. I think one reason for this is clearly the audience, most are men above the age of 18. This is the demographic of people that people think can take a joke or might even make the joke.
ReplyDeleteAnother reason I think people can get away with saying controversial things on air is because many people can't put a face to the name. Yes, many radio host are also famous television reporters as well. In general the fact of this information coming just by audio lets people drown it out quicker. You didn't actually see the person say it.
The last reason I think radio can get away with this is because some people actually tune in to hear what these controversial people have to say, the listeners know that they will get a much different viewpoint then from television.
I agree with the sentiment that sports talk radio is a more mature (or immature) medium intended for younger and middle-aged men, and therefore potentially offensive content and statements are usually allowed. Not only does the audience consist of many men, but it's much harder to stumble upon a particular talk show on the AM radio dial than on cable TV.
ReplyDeleteWe have to remember, though, that there are usually many more sports talk radio outlets in a particular market than there are television stations, so hosts have to distinguish themselves in some manner. Jim Rome established himself as a brash host with comedic elements, and he is now distinguished as the original host of that sort. Now, some hosts may compete to be the most outspoken or controversial host in a particular market just to gain listeners. It's all part of entertainment and an act.